Fingertips...Almost touching...Just a...Bit further...
I have to admit that I am a little hesitant about putting up this post; I'm not sure how you guys will respond to it. I have a rather strong feeling that I might run into some opposition to some of the things I say here; that's fine, I love having discussions with people who disagree with me, and I think that any problems you have with what I have to say will help me understand my argument or your positions better. That is what I'm looking for, and I think you guys like me enough (I hope!) to give what I say a chance even if it sounds crazy to you. What I hope to avoid is saying anything that might offend anyone because of my ignorance, not because I'm afraid of offending anyone but because I hold everyone who reads this blog in too high esteem to wish losing a friendship because of some disagreement, even when it's on something as important as religion. So, if you have anything to say regarding my reasoning, please leave a comment; if you think I'm completely overboard and offensive, please send me an e-mail so we can sort it out privately. I don't think it will come to that, though.Okay, that was far more serious than I usually start out my posts! Time to take a deep breath, and let the penguin of knowledge guide us to new shores!
Brilliant men have always had disagreements on the nature of religion. It is rather unusual that we have so many brilliant people who agree on one thing at all, namely that there is something more to this life than the material world, but when it comes to explaining what that thing is we can't seem to find two philosophers or theologians to agree. This seems odd to me. If the best minds that mankind has come up with cannot agree on religious and spiritual matters, how can we come up with any knowledge about God that is solid? Sure, we can look at religious texts and search for knowledge about God from our understanding of those books, but the one unifying factor regarding those texts is their metaphoric and symbolic qualities, as well as their paradoxical qualities. While these are powerful uses of language, describing their meaning in other terms proves tricky. We might be able to approximate their meaning in abstract terms, but that tends to take away the immediacy and power of the content. It seems hard to reconcile religious texts with truth when they seem, not only to contradict each other, but to contradict themselves.
On the other hand, those brilliant men whom I mentioned above, despite their disagreements, all agreed that these works were important, whether or not they agreed with them. Something is missing here. Our best minds think that these works are important, despite their seeming weaknesses, but they can't agree on what these texts mean.
It seems to me that we have a problem regarding meaning. This makes sense when we consider that our subject is God the Almighty; it makes sense that the power behind the universe is difficult in the extreme to understand in any portion. There is an old 'proof' of God's existence called the Ontological argument that goes something like this:
God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Something that exists is greater than something that does not exist.
If God did not exist, we could conceive of something greater than Him existing: namely, something that exists in reality rather than just in our head.
Therefore, God must exist.
At first it seems that if you arrange the words in the correct way that magically God appears. I disliked this 'proof' for a long time until I discussed it with my philosophy professor. After that, I realized that the proof works if you accept that, using it, you cannot assign any properties to God without making him not "that which nothing greater than which can be conceived." In plain English, God exists, but we cannot know for certain anything about Him using that argument.
This leads us to the limiting factors on our knowledge: language and how humans are set up. The latter is less of a problem. We can only know new things in terms of what we already know, meaning in this case that theology is more of a study of what people think than who God is. Still, we can overcome this. First, we are "made in God's image." (Genesis 1:27) so we have some justification in our anthropomorphized descriptions of God. Second, I believe God is aware of our limitations, so when he reveals himself to us, he does not show us his true self, but only puts on a 'puppet show,' if you will, revealing as much as he can that we can understand. So while humans can only really talk about God in terms of being human, sometimes what we say actually resembles what God is really like.
I have, of course, talked about the weakness of the vehicle, the literal level of language before. When talking about spiritual matters, the problem is compounded. Some of the things we want to talk about simply cannot fit into words. This is why books like Ezekiel and Revelation in the Bible are written the way they were. They are not good literature; they were not meant to be. They are meant to show us some resemblance to supernatural power. On the other hand, I also talked about the thematic level of reality, and how we can access it through words even if the words are not accurate reflections of the meaning. This is what these books are trying to accomplish. They are true, even when, or perhaps especially when, paradoxes come up in them. It's just that our puny minds can't wrap around how both sides, which seem contradictory, can both be true, much the same way we can't understand how an electron is both wave and particle.
Unfortunately, the fact that we can't fully understand everything means that we have to pick and choose. This is where some of C.S. Lewis' ideas come in. While he was certain of the truth of Christianity, he said something rather strange. He said that God often accepts people who didn't know better who were trying the best they could with what they know. I think he's right, but I have justification for it: I think that these people whom God accepts are doing and saying the right things on the thematic level, even if they reject Christianity on the literal level of the words they say. As it is written, "The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7B) And let's face it. There is a lot that can be improved in Christianity; all levels. It seems that on every level from the local churches to the highest leadership there is corruption and false actions. I don't see it as a bad thing at all when someone criticizes Christianity, as long as by that he means the church in the world, with all of its baseness and iniquities, and not the Church that transcends words and labels; the Church bearing the fruit of the spirit. Hardly ever do I see people attacking that aspect of Christianity.
On the other hand, while it may be true that people who do not associate with the christian religion may in fact turn out to be close to God's heart, the fact that we cannot accurately know about God has another result, one that leads to strife. If it is true, then none of the different branches of Christianity can have it all right, but only aspects of the truth. But I don't look at this as cause for despair: I think that we should have differences in doctrine. Ideally, these differences should draw people with different needs to them, and help them find their path to God. Ideally, the high churches should minister to those who need regulations and traditions in order to open themselves to the Holy Ghost, and the low churches should minister to those who need freedom and equality in order to open themselves up to the Holy Spirit. And think about it. Aren't all those qualities represented and needed in what we perceive as Divine Virtue? So if you know you've found the true church for you, continue to worship and believe in its tenets. Just know that it is a way to open yourself to God, and not an end in itself.
Does this make me a universalist, believing that all people will be admitted through the pearly gates? I wish I could say yes. But the truth is, I think that God has given us the free will to reject Him if we like. And if they do reject Him, I don't think there is anything he can do to get them into the glory of Heaven. That, my friends, is what I would call hell.
So that's how I see it; my theological theory of everything. What I wrote here doesn't explain everything, obviously, but it should give you some idea on my thoughts.
13 Comments:
The title, by the by, is refering to Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the sistene chapel of God and man reaching out to touch one another. We put out all of our knowledge to try to touch him but we never quite succeed.
I'm working on my own big spill, prompted from Maren's post awhile back about you-know-what, so I won't go into a big commentary here.
I will say, however, this, about the opening paragraph of your post:
I have been told, to my face, that my religion is a cult.
I have heard it said that the seminary building "scares the hell" out of a particular person, so much that he wouldn't go near it.
I have heard many things after this manner.
Furthermore, these weren't from the people who go and protest near Temple Square periodically. All these statements were from someone who I knew in high school as a friend.
He wasn't trying to hurt me; he actually considered me a friend as well. It was what he believed, however much I disagree. Especially on the whole agnosticism thing he was partial to.
From everything I've seen of him, I believe him to be an honorable person who cares for his fellow men, and I still consider him a friend and am glad I got his signature in my yearbook on that last day of school.
If he could believe those things and tell me and not destroy our friendship, I think it's safe to say that absolutely nothing you can say will ruin my esteem for you.
So rest easy. ;)
Moses saw God face to face on Mount Siani. He saw what God really looks like, because he was transfigured before him. Man in their natural state cannot view God.
I agree with C.S. Lewis's statement. And God does look on the heart. The reason that Christianity is lacking is because...oh, how to say this without saying that...can't be done. Christian religions lack only when they are not guided by God. Only when they are guided my men. Men are corrupt and imperfect and greedy beings. For the Christian churches to be guided by God, as they must needs be, then the temporal leader of the said church must be recieving revelation from God, for his people, in this day in age. It's the only way that Christian churches are going to be able to function. (Here's where I get in trouble.) That's what divides the LDS church from other Christian churches. (Yes, we are Christian.) We have a prophet now, who is recieving revelation to guide us NOW. Think about it: Old Testament prophets were awesome, and wrote wonderful and meaningful things. HOWEVER, they are old as the hills and beyond. We are here and now, and facing completely different circumstances than the people in Old Testament times were. Vice versa, assuming that President Hinckley does recieve modern day revelation for the LDS church, this new revelation would not apply to the people in the Old Testament. For instance, we are told not to date before we are 16. I don't think that would matter to the children of Israel. What about not wearing tank tops or revealing clothing? Yes, good advice all around, but that really just wasn't an issue to the them. Just as abiding the Law of Moses isn't an issue to us. It's been fulfilled, it's over, it's done, and lets move on with the next law for us to live.
We have modern day revelation. Not having it would be ridiculous. We need it. Yes, we need what the prophets in the Bible have said, but we need what our prophets today say even more.
Then why does modern day revelation pick and choose among the Old Testament laws and regulations as being valid today? I can understand a prophet's message being for his time, but God is always true and unchanging. What was right and moral in the Israelites day is right and moral today. The fact is, our virtue is limited, and so we cannot, as we are, do everything that is required of us as being virtuous, and because we fail at that we fail at everything. We are commanded to "be perfect, therefore, as my Father is perfect." but we fail because "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." (Ro. 3:23) It doesn't matter what rules we follow, it is an inherent flaw in humankind that keeps us from being completely good, which is the only amount good enough for God. It is only through our connection with God, no matter how literal or how doctrinally correct we are, that can cleanse us. In fact we pretty much do nothing: it is only a willingness to be open to His majesty and glory.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it really isn't about the law, because the law is incomplete. "It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring recieved the promise that he would be heir to the world, but through his righteousness that comes through faith." (Ro. 4:13) If this law brings you closer to God, then amen and God bless it. But remember what Jesus said when he spoke to the Pharisees about his disciples breaking the law on the Sabbath: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mark 2:27.
Maren, I think the Law of Moses was "fulfilled" in that Christ's teachings encompassed that law within a higher law. He took the law a step further.
Emmett, my comment became much longer than I thought it would, so I'll send it over to my post. I'm not offended at all by your post! You sound a lot like Joseph Smith during his youth, and though you know more than he did, I believe he received his answer in a different way. This question of which church is right, or how should we follow them, is what began the LDS Church.
It seems that you see yourself trying to find out what is right for you, and that all Christian Churches are right in that they try to bring you to Christ. I believed that men will be judged by what knowledge they have obtained, and that the knowledge of Moses' followers was not the same as Christ's. It seems that now you see the different man-made churches have varying degrees of truth, and while they do, I believe that a prophet is necessary to guide Christ's Church, according to their readiness to receive greater light, or truth. Obeying greater truth brings greater blessings, so this progression must continue for us all as we show our willingness to accept Christ's sacrifice for our sin and to live with Him in heaven.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry about the deleted comment. I accidentally posted a comment twice (how it let me, I don't know).
Yes, we all fail because of sin, but (I can't remember where in Isaiah) it is promised that through repentence "though our sins be as scarlet they will be white as snow." Or something along those words...
God is unchanging. But you must understand, that the Jews saw Christ as coming to destroy the law of Moses. He didn't destroy it, he fulfilled it, therefore it was no longer needful.
I don't quite understand your turn of phrase: "He fulfilled it, thus it was no longer needed." If the law is fulfilled, doesn't that mean that it is made perfect rather than being unnecessary? And if the law is perfect, as per my argument, it cannot be written down or ennumerated. No improved knowledge of it can be attained. It can only be through our connection, our trust in Him who has fulfilled it that we can live under the new covenant.
Modern day prophets can certainly help us on our way to doing that. I knew a woman who visited our church occasionally (she lived in Colorado, but would fly out once a year or so because she had relatives here). She would see people in the crowd and God would reveal to her their pain and what they needed to do to be healed. She would sometimes tell people that there was someone close who they needed to pray for, and she was always right. Certainly my faith in God was made stronger because of her influence.
You guys are good. You know all of the doctrine inside out and backwards, and when you call me on something, you are so persuasive that I get dragged into speaking on concrete terms, which is something I wanted to avoid doing. This is not a bad trait to have at all.
My ideas are so new to me that I haven't learned to apply them fully yet. I was on my way to class that I realized that I was doing what I wanted to critique (not reject, just understand) in my post. We are at cross ends because we don't understand each others' thought, in the same way we don't understand the ways and thoughts of God. It could be that on the thematic level we are saying the same thing, because what we are discussing is so close to being everything that we have a hard time forming the right things. What we say is not necessarily what we believe. So when we get caught up on what "fulfilled" means, we should remember that we don't know exactly what the other person is saying, and the context of what they mean, along with the complexity of the topic, may be that they are pretty much right. Does this mean that we should quit arguing about these things? No; they are infinitely important, and we should stick up for what edifies us. What I suggest is just making sure that we don't assume to know everything.
I say 'fulfilled' meaning that the Law of Moses was full of symbolism. Offering the firstlings of the flocks without blemish as a sacrifice was symbolic of Christ, the firstborn of God, performing the atonement. Thus, the law was brought full circle. It was first created to teach the children of Israel of the great and lasting sacrifice of Christ who was to come. The Jews did not believe Christ was who he said he was when he came, and therefore they still practic the Law of Moses. But Christ HAS come, and has given us a higher law to live. When we have learned this new law, it will be the Millenium, and Christ will come and reign personally upon the earth, and we will practice the highest law: the Law of Consecration. These lower laws are steps to test our obedience and faith. We must accept our current law and live it in order to progress. The Jews have not accepted that their law was fullilled, and so still practice it. Christ came and said he had fullfilled the law, and gave his discourse on the Mount of Olives, giving us our new law that we practice now.
Did any of that make remote sense? I'm not as smart at this as people think; all I've got is my limited understanding, gut feeling, unconquerable testimony, and a love of Christ. I know it's not a ton of book learning, but we are told that the gospel will be declared to the mighty by the simple and meek.
Minor detail which isn't really important at this point: the highest (as far as I know) law is the celestial law, not the law of consecration, though the law of consecration is part of the celestial law....
"The law of sacrifice is a celestial law; so also is the law of consecration"--Elder McConkie, April 1975 conference
Yes, and the highest blessing comes from living the Celestial Law. A man receieves the glory of the Law he is obeying after the resurrection. This is all on our path toward being perfect.
Clear as mud, Emmett? We throw out terms like they were names of physical conditions: if you're the patient and not the doctor, you have no clue what's killing you. (Don't take that any deeper than sunburn deep or it'll kill the mood) I know. Lame-o! 8)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home